opinion
Wrong, Wolfman—draft registration is heavy
Uncle Sam and Wolfman Jack are asking men
born in 1962 to do something for their country —
go to the post office.
They’re polite enough about it. Registering
with the Selective Service System is no big deal,
Wolfman says. Besides, with all the privileges in
this country come a few responsibilities. And if you
don’t want to go to the post office, that’s OK. Just
be prepared to face the possibility of a five-year
prison term and a $10,000 fine.
It’s an ugly choice, but one a new group of
University students must make this week, despite
tireless efforts by groups such as the Committee
Opposed to Registration and the Draft, and de
spite Pres.-elect Ronald Reagan's stated opposi
tion to peace-time registration.
Whether to register is a decision best left to
each individual, but even men who choose to
comply with the law should balk at its implications.
We oppose the draft and draft registration for
several reasons. When Pres. Carter implemented
the plan in July he said it would send a message to
the Soviet Union that the United States is still a
country of action. Registering our 19- and
20-year-olds would deter Soviet military action, he
said.
Obviously that “warning” went unheeded.
Russian presence in Afghanistan continues, and a
Soviet invasion of Poland still is considered an
option by the Kremlin.
The “pool of names” argument Ijor registra
tion is questionable as well. At least onq,reputable
study maintains registration saves as littie as
seven days in the civilian-to-soldier metamorpho
sis.
Underlying the arguments that registration is
unnecessary now and that it is likely to lead to a
draft is our belief that the draft (and therefore draft
registration) is a blatant abrogation of liberty. It
presupposes the bottom line of Statism: that we all
owe our lives, without any choice in the matter, to
the government. The notion of liberty, of freedom
from slavery or imprisonment, is completely lost.
Men born in 1962 should carefully consider all
their options this week, and should think twice
about Wolfman Jack’s television-transmitted
opinion that registration “ain't nothing too heavy
to deal with.”
vars
Opposing ‘O’
In the article entitled “Story of O”
printed December 8, it was stated "For all
the hollering ‘O’ turned out to be soft
core rather than hard core porn.” The
differentiation between soft core and
hard core pornography is not what the
“hollering” was about. Whether the film
is more "akin” to "Charlie's Angels”
than to "Deep Throat” is not the point of
contention as implied by the article. It is
not the degree of explicitness nor how
graphic the scenes of violence, abuse or
mutilation that draws my objection Mr.
Manny. You miss the point. The issue is
this — the existence of (in any form)
violence against, abuse of and mutilation
of women. More specifically, it is the
belief that any film or other form of "en
tertainment” which depicts women as
obedient, passive, willing (or unwilling,
for coercion need not be overt to be
effective) sexual slaves who submit to
abuse serves to reinforce and perpetuate
the dehumanizing, degrading and des
tructive attitudes typically held about
women. Such attitudes result in grave
consequences for women whether it be
in their homes, their places of em
ployment, or in their communities. This is
evidenced, only in part, by statistics that
show the ever-increasing rates of bat
tered women, of reported rapes (not to
forget the unreported rapes) and as
saults on women.
Manny (the reporter) describes the film
as "silly but well-photographed.” The
use of the word “silly” somehow implies
that the content of the film does not merit
protesting. The reduction of women to
less than human beings may be de
scribed as many things but "silly” it is
not! I believe it is worth my while to
protest and oppose anything which den
ies women (or men) the right to be treat
ed with respect and dignity. A right that
each and every one of us deserves un
conditionally.
Lora Pierce
Graduate student,
international studies
Applauding ‘O’
After reading Bill Manny's article on
"The Story of O” I was appalled at all the
criticism and had to respond. I saw the
film several years ago when it first came
out and would have seen it again if I had
seen it advertised. The story is excellent
and the cinematography is some of the
best I’ve seen. There are many excellent
scenes where the foreground action
subtley nets background imagery (eg.
beautiful gardens seen through a win
dow between "O” and her lover talking
at a restaurant).
“O" is the heroine who goes through
countless scenes of savage sexualism
for the man she loves. In the end (you
shouldn’t always leave without seeing
the entire picture), her lover becomes
enraptured with her. "O” finally gets
what she wants, gains control over her
lover (or at least equality), and brands
her lover with a cigarette lighter (in the
shape of an “O").
True, a violent sexist story, but what a
story; I admit I was awakened erotically
(we all supress primeval savagery), but
nothing compared with my intellectual
admiration of the author’s so finely and
intricately weaving a sensitive love story
amongst blatant violence. One can be
enlightened by drawing the conclusion
that O's reaction to her previous savage
treatment leads her also to that level of
savagery when she brands her lover; a
point showing that how a person is
treated often leads to similar treatment
from them.
“The Story of O” is a balance of sen
sitivitiy and violence so true in one form
or another in human existence I thought
it was a film every mature adult should
see, but apparently with guidance.
J.F. Cowgill
Architecture
For John Lennon
December 8, 1980 will now mark the
day that John Lennon was shot and killed
outside his New York apartment.
Together with Paul McCartney, Ringo
Starr and George Harrison, the four men
changed the history of rock and roll by
greatly affecting the attitudes and style of
music.
Following a long period of self-exile,
Lennon was finally making his way back
into the mainstream of the musical world
with another album soon to be released.
It is difficult to comprehend how one
man, described by local police as a
“kook,” could have in a few seconds
time ended Lennon’s life.
This act of senseless violence is cer
tainly not an isolated event. But sense
less violence like this does not effect us
until it happens to someone we love. On
December 8, that someone was John
Lennon.
Throughout the world, newspapers in
different countries covering the event
the following day seemd to ask the same
question: “How can the United States fail
to employ stricter gun control methods?"
If there is a lesson to be learned from this
madness, perhaps we can find it in this
question.
For now, we mourn the loss of one of
the greatest musical talents the world
has ever known. Through the sadness,
the words of George Harrison keep
coming back to mind:
“Life goes on within you and without
you.”
Maggie Lear
Junior, Psychology
More zealotism
Why is it when people make political
speeches and engage in debates to get
their point across they are cheered, yet
when someone tries to get. his point
across on Christianity or Christian ethics
he is greeted by jeers of “Bullshit”?
May I remind Mr. Wasson.that he and
the Christians are in the same boat. Both
Mr. Wasson and the Christians have a
point to get across. However, Mr. Was
son has the advantage of a somewhat
moldy column while the Christian has to
resort to trying to talk to people on a
one-on-one basis.
Might I suggest, also, that Mr. Was
son's “friend” was being more of a
stubborn “zealot” than the Christian.
While the Christian sat back and took the
full salvo of Glen’s anti-Christian ar
gument, Glen refused the Christian an
opening statement or even a rebuttal. I
ask, “Who is being the ‘zealot' now?”
The point I want to make is that when
one accuses another of “zealotism” and
then refuses to listen to the "zealot,” he
has become the thing he hates and crF
ticizes, a close-minded "zealot.” ll
seems that Mr. Wasson's friend, Glen
(and possibly Mr. Wasson), have-toe'come
the kind of hypocrites I just mentioned. It
also seems that the “Christian zealot”
reflected Glen's values better than Glen
did. Maybe Glen should spend another
decade examining his "values.”
Matthew T. Ruane
Freshman, anthropology